Tulalip Housing Authority v. Medina, (2004)

• Decision Date: 29 November 2004
• Docket Number: TUL-CR-ET-2004-0211
• Parties: THE TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY, APPELLANT, v. AVEL MEDINA, SR., APPELLEE.
• Court: Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals

THE TULALIP HOUSING AUTHORITY, APPELLANT, v. AVEL MEDINA, SR., APPELLEE.

No. TUL-CR-ET-2004-0211

Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals

November 29, 2004

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

Trial court, sitting as Employment Court, reversed a decision of the Housing Authority suspending an employee for a major offense under the Tribe's Human Resources Ordinance.Court of Appeals holds trial court lacks the discretion to disturb an administrative decision regarding employee discipline where the administrator has followed the procedural requirements set forth in the tribal code.Trial court order reversed.

Appearances: Sam Stiltner for Tulalip Housing Authority.Avel Medina, Sr., pro se.

Before: Jane Smith, Chief Justice; Edythe Chenois, Justice Elizabeth F.M.Nason, Justice.

OPINION

SUMMARY

This matter came before the Tulalip Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed July 9, 2004, by Appellant, Tulalip Housing Authority (hereinafter referred to as "THA").Appellant, THA, is appealing an Order dated July 1, 2004 by the Tulalip Tribal Court.

The facts and records presented to the court provide that AppelleeAvel Medina Sr., is an employee of the THA.On or about June 15, 2004, Mr. Medina received a Notice of Suspension for the dates of June 15, 2004 to July 6, 2004 pursuant to violations of Title IXD 2, u, v, x, y & ab of the Tulalip Tribes Human Resources Ordinance(hereinafter "HRO").The basis for the suspension was that on May 21, 2004, while Mr. Medina was serving as Acting Manager for the THA Office, he had used his authority to attain unauthorized approval and disbursement for $12,900.00 from his MEPA account.Violations of these sections are classified as "major offenses" and may be punished by either suspension or termination pursuant to §X.A(1) of the HRO.

Mr Medina filed a timely appeal, which was tried by the Tulalip Employment Court on June 30, 2004.The trial court determined that Mr. Medina violated HRO 84§IX.D.(1)(m) which constitutes "acting outside the chain of command", a minor offense, and ordered that a warning be placed in Mr. Medina's file and that he receive back pay and restoration of any lost benefits.Appellant contended that the trial court did not find that the supervisor had not followed HR 84.THA filed a timely appeal and oral arguments were scheduled.

DISCUSSION

This Court had determined a precedential case, which is similar to the case at hand, on October 7, 2004...